![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
New lens for Canon 7D
- Thread starter EngrChris
- Start date
Another vote for the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. I'm about to pick up a used one on a different forum. Its supposed to be the sharpest EF-S lens you can buy, close to "L" quality except for the lack of environmental sealing.
After that, my next upgrade will be a 70-200mm f/4L IS and maybe a Canon Extender EF 2x II to go with it (giving me a 140-400mm range from the same lens).
It really depends on what kind of photography you're into. Do you want an ultra-wide angle or fisheye for landscapes? A crazy 500mm telephoto for birding? An all-purpose walkaround lens like the Tamron 18-270mm? Need more details on what you're into.
After that, my next upgrade will be a 70-200mm f/4L IS and maybe a Canon Extender EF 2x II to go with it (giving me a 140-400mm range from the same lens).
It really depends on what kind of photography you're into. Do you want an ultra-wide angle or fisheye for landscapes? A crazy 500mm telephoto for birding? An all-purpose walkaround lens like the Tamron 18-270mm? Need more details on what you're into.
What are you going to be shooting? Sports, general, travel, landscapes, low light???? If we know that then we can recommend one to you.
I would recommend either the 17-55 IS or the 24-105 f/4 IS.
There is always the 35L, 85L, and 135L.
I am one off from Canon's holy trinity
I would recommend either the 17-55 IS or the 24-105 f/4 IS.
There is always the 35L, 85L, and 135L.
I am one off from Canon's holy trinity
I would recommend:
Wide angle = Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6
General walk-around = Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS
Zoom = Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L
Macro = Canon 100mm f/2.8
Now the above can be changed around a bit:
1. The Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 can be replaced with the more expensive Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 or the even more expensive Canon 10-22mm f/4-5.6
2. The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L can be replaced with the more expensive EF 70-200mm f/4L IS or the more expensive EF 70-200mm f/2.8 or the still more expensive EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS.
3. The Canon 100mm f/2.8 can be replaced with the more expensive Canon 100mm f/2.8L.
I say wide angle Canon 10-22. It's a hidden L, IQ wise
General walkaround = 24-105 this will probably be glued to your camera
Macro = 100mm f/2.8
Or you can just get the 24L f/1.4. While it's not a macro, it does a decent job. It's lightweight, ultra-wide and does great in low light.
General walkaround = 24-105 this will probably be glued to your camera
Macro = 100mm f/2.8
Or you can just get the 24L f/1.4. While it's not a macro, it does a decent job. It's lightweight, ultra-wide and does great in low light.
Good tips in both of these posts. I would go Canon 10-22 over the Sigma. Better overall and better QC.
Funny enough, I own all these as well. I have the 10-22, 24-105, 100 2.8, and 50 1.8.
The 24-105 is not the widest on a crop body, but I really like it personally and many others do as well. When I want wide, I just pop on the 10-22.
I have heard and read many good things about the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6, which often compares favorably to the Canon 10-22mm in terms of IQ and optics and is priced several hundred dollars less.
Wide Angle: If you like wide, low-light performance, I'd look at the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. Its about as fast as you're going to get at that focal length and very sharp.
Walk-Around: The 24-105 is a great lens on a full-frame camera, but its pretty long on a 1.6X crop body (38-168mm effective). If you want something wider to carry around I'd check out the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 OS or maybe even the Canon 15-85mm IS that is bundled with the 'premium' 7D kit.
Zoom: You really can't go wrong with any of the 70-200s. Get an IS version if you can.
Macro: I haven't tried any macro lenses personally yet so I'll leave that to the others. I hear the new Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS is going to be great when it is released, however.
Walk-Around: The 24-105 is a great lens on a full-frame camera, but its pretty long on a 1.6X crop body (38-168mm effective). If you want something wider to carry around I'd check out the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 OS or maybe even the Canon 15-85mm IS that is bundled with the 'premium' 7D kit.
Zoom: You really can't go wrong with any of the 70-200s. Get an IS version if you can.
Macro: I haven't tried any macro lenses personally yet so I'll leave that to the others. I hear the new Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS is going to be great when it is released, however.
Another plus of the 10-22 and 24-105 combo is that they both use 77mm filters.
Yes, it is very comparable in IQ and optics. The only thing the Canon improves upon is the flare resistance.
The reason for going Canon over Sigma though IMO is the QC. The Sigmas have a much greater chance of being misaligned out of the box, and many over at POTN back when I posted there regularly had that issue with the 10-20. If you get a good one, the 10-20 is a great lens, but the Canon is a bit better if you can shell out the money for it (the only reason to go with the Sigma is to save money and the OP said budget is not a problem). The Canon also holds its value a bit better if that is at all important to you.
Yes, it is very comparable in IQ and optics. The only thing the Canon improves upon is the flare resistance.
The reason for going Canon over Sigma though IMO is the QC. The Sigmas have a much greater chance of being misaligned out of the box, and many over at POTN back when I posted there regularly had that issue with the 10-20. If you get a good one, the 10-20 is a great lens, but the Canon is a bit better if you can shell out the money for it (the only reason to go with the Sigma is to save money and the OP said budget is not a problem). The Canon also holds its value a bit better if that is at all important to you.
Nice! Yeah it had been a while since I'd read anything about that lens so I wasn't sure if it was out or not. How do you like it? Does the IS really work at macro distances? There was some debate as to whether it would really do the claimed 2 stops at the minimum focus distance.
On a related note, I just bought myself an Xmas present:
I just sent the money for it so I won't receive it for a week or two, but I have to say I'm excited! I'll be selling off some lenses and filters soon to offset the cost.
Yes - those are all "decent." Most of them are excellent. I would skip the 16-35 as it is very expensive and not very wide on a crop. Go with the Tokina 11-16 2.8 if you have to have 2.8 in your wide. 100L is also excellent and I would get it if price were not an object. If it is, get the non-L version which is also superb.
Frankly, I would also skip the 24-105. Although it is an excellent lens, I don't think it is significantly better than the 28-135. Since you already have that, get the 17-55IS or some other fast, normal zoom. Or get a fast prime or two for the same price. And since you seem to have the budget for it, pick up a good flash.
I love spending other people's money
I don't want to come across as negative, but you're very wrong there. I went from the 28-135mm kit lens to the 24-105mm f/4L and it's like night and day. The 24-105mm has superb IQ and is super sharp, fast, and crisp. It is far superior to the 28-135mm, which is a good beginner lens. Keep in mind that the 24-105mm f/4L is an "L" lens.
I agree with PC_User. I had the 28-135 and now the 24-105 and in terms of IQ, my 24-105 was sharper, faster, etc..... I just had it calibrated after 3 years of usage and it has never failed, in rain, sleet and snow.... If I had one lens it would be the 24-105. I know some people would pick things like the 24-70 and 17-55, but now me. And I own all those lens
I agree with PC_User. I had the 28-135 and now the 24-105 and in terms of IQ, my 24-105 was sharper, faster, etc..... I just had it calibrated after 3 years of usage and it has never failed, in rain, sleet and snow.... If I had one lens it would be the 24-105. I know some people would pick things like the 24-70 and 17-55, but now me. And I own all those lens
The 24-70mm f/2.8L is also a great lens, but I ultimately chose the 24-105mm f/4L as my main walk-around lens due to the IQ and additional zoom. Another important factor was the image stabilization. The 24-70mm f/2.8L is better in low light and is faster, which are advantages for anyone who shoots in low light or for someone who shoots action/sports photography. For general travel/landscapes, the 24-105mm is a better choice. And the image stabilization is a nice plus.
Yes it is a better lens, but not so much better that we should ignore the OPs other stated needs. One of those was low-light and the 24-105 is not a fast lens. For the price of the L he could get a 2.8 zoom or several good, fast primes. Sometimes an L is not the best solution.
Here it would give the OP a stop on the long end and better weather sealing. It MAY give him more contrast and sharper images, but I have seen many, many shots from a 28-135 that were very good. Most differences can be fixed in post.
If price is truly no object, the L is a better lens and he should get it. Otherwise, other lenses would better meet the stated goals and therefore, I think the better advice to OP is to keep his 28-135 for now.
Here it would give the OP a stop on the long end and better weather sealing. It MAY give him more contrast and sharper images, but I have seen many, many shots from a 28-135 that were very good. Most differences can be fixed in post.
If price is truly no object, the L is a better lens and he should get it. Otherwise, other lenses would better meet the stated goals and therefore, I think the better advice to OP is to keep his 28-135 for now.
I am pretty cheap when it comes to stuff like this. I will spend weeks and weeks reading reviews on different lenses to see what it the "best bang for the buck" as at this point in my life it is financially hard to pay those premiums that come with higher grade Canons and their L series (though I constantly drool on their pictures!!). With that being said I have been quite happy with my setup (though my body, Tokina and Tamron need to be sent in for recalibrations) that I have picked up over the last couple years.
Tokina 19-35mm F/3.5-5.6 (aka The Plastic Fantastic - GREAT Lens!!! Has incredible contrast, quick in good light and love the "wide" usage and sharp between F/8 to F/22)
Tamron 24-135mm F/3.5-5.6 MACRO (aka The Poor Man's L - Another GREAT Lens!!! Can be a bit cumbersome at times but still has great contrast, color, IQ and makes for a good walk around. Not to mention functions best from F/8, F/11, F16 - F/22)
Tokina 19-35mm F/3.5-5.6 (aka The Plastic Fantastic - GREAT Lens!!! Has incredible contrast, quick in good light and love the "wide" usage and sharp between F/8 to F/22)
Tamron 24-135mm F/3.5-5.6 MACRO (aka The Poor Man's L - Another GREAT Lens!!! Can be a bit cumbersome at times but still has great contrast, color, IQ and makes for a good walk around. Not to mention functions best from F/8, F/11, F16 - F/22)
You seem to be missing the point. In terms of image quality, the 28-135mm and the 24-105mm L are light years apart. The OP said that budget isn't much of an issue but he wants to have a collection of lenses that he can use for years. Thus, the 24-105mm is certainly one lens that he should consider and it can last him for years to come. And it is a relatively fast lens, depending on the conditions and places where it will be used. Certainly the 24-70mm f/2.8L is faster, but it lacks image stabilization and the addition 35mm of focal length. Ultimately, the OP should select a lens based on what subjects he will be shooting and in what conditions.
While other lenses may meet his goals, the end goal is to have a set of high-quality lenses that will be used for many years. Unfortunately, the 28-135mm just doesn't make the cut and isn't a lens that one would keep in a professional bag.
The 24-70 vs 24-105 debate is probably one of the biggest among canon shooters.
You have no idea how many times it was discussed over and over at POTN when I posted and gave advice there regularly. In the end it just comes down to what YOU want and what YOU like. Both are compromises in comparison to the other and both are VERY good lenses.
24-70
Pros:
-f2.8
-Slightly better colors
-Slightly sharper*
Cons:
-Heavier and Larger Physically
-*More variation in performance (some are stellar, some are not quite as good, though still excellent)
-70 vs. 105 on the long end
-no-IS
24-105
Pros:
-Lighter and Smaller Physically
-Good IS system
-Longer FL (24-105)
-Fairly constant in performance, have not seen too many reports of softer copies
Cons:
-105 end is a bit softer (though not as big of an issue on crop cameras)
-f4 vs f2.8
-Not as much pop in the colors
Both
Pros
-Excellent Build Quality and Mechanics (the focusing, zoom, etc. is all very solid)
-Full Time Manual focus (FTM)
-"L" colors
-Very good against flare
-Consistent performance
Con
-Price
You have no idea how many times it was discussed over and over at POTN when I posted and gave advice there regularly. In the end it just comes down to what YOU want and what YOU like. Both are compromises in comparison to the other and both are VERY good lenses.
24-70
Pros:
-f2.8
-Slightly better colors
-Slightly sharper*
Cons:
-Heavier and Larger Physically
-*More variation in performance (some are stellar, some are not quite as good, though still excellent)
-70 vs. 105 on the long end
-no-IS
24-105
Pros:
-Lighter and Smaller Physically
-Good IS system
-Longer FL (24-105)
-Fairly constant in performance, have not seen too many reports of softer copies
Cons:
-105 end is a bit softer (though not as big of an issue on crop cameras)
-f4 vs f2.8
-Not as much pop in the colors
Both
Pros
-Excellent Build Quality and Mechanics (the focusing, zoom, etc. is all very solid)
-Full Time Manual focus (FTM)
-"L" colors
-Very good against flare
-Consistent performance
Con
-Price
I'm not missing your point, I just don't agree. Nor do I think you are fairly reading what I have written. I'm suggesting alternatives to the 24-105 based on his already having a perfectly decent (though not great) lens in the same general focal lengths.
If all he wanted was a replacement for the 28-135, I would probably agree with you. But he said he wanted Macro, low light, and other uses where the 24-105 isn't the best choice. As I said, there is no question the L is a better lens, but I disagree that it is "light years" apart. The difference in image quality is incremental, primarily in corner sharpness at large apertures, contrast and fringing, with the latter two being easily fixable and extremely minor unless doing very large prints.
EngrChris, if you really don't care about budget, by all mean, get every L you can. I didn't take "budget isn't much of a problem" to mean it was unlimited or that you didn't care about value.
For your stated goals, I thnk PC-User's recommendations are generally very good. I would also consider the Tokina 11-16 for wideangle, the Canon 17-55IS or Tamron 17-50VC for walkaround and a 50 1.4 for low-light (either Canon or Sigma).
If all he wanted was a replacement for the 28-135, I would probably agree with you. But he said he wanted Macro, low light, and other uses where the 24-105 isn't the best choice. As I said, there is no question the L is a better lens, but I disagree that it is "light years" apart. The difference in image quality is incremental, primarily in corner sharpness at large apertures, contrast and fringing, with the latter two being easily fixable and extremely minor unless doing very large prints.
EngrChris, if you really don't care about budget, by all mean, get every L you can. I didn't take "budget isn't much of a problem" to mean it was unlimited or that you didn't care about value.
For your stated goals, I thnk PC-User's recommendations are generally very good. I would also consider the Tokina 11-16 for wideangle, the Canon 17-55IS or Tamron 17-50VC for walkaround and a 50 1.4 for low-light (either Canon or Sigma).
Yes, there are probably other lenses that he should look at, but replacing his 28-135mm is also a wise move and replacing it with the 24-105mm will yield favorable results. In terms of value, you can't really compare the two because, even though they cover similar focal ranges, they are in different categories in terms of image quality and build quality.
Also, I hardly think that the difference in IQ is "incremental" as I have had both lenses and compared them side-by-side. The 28-135mm frequently has issues with vignetting, significant softness after 100mm, bland colors relative to the 24-105mm, and no weatherproofing.
Also, I hardly think that the difference in IQ is "incremental" as I have had both lenses and compared them side-by-side. The 28-135mm frequently has issues with vignetting, significant softness after 100mm, bland colors relative to the 24-105mm, and no weatherproofing.
try fm or photo.net for better discussion, imo.
or have a look at my website for a little 1-line review of my lenses. http://www.uglypixel.net/about
I wouldn't say that
So does POTN
POTN has the best Canon talk IMO as well, FM for example tends to be more nikon bias IMO.
Me, I'd chose Tokina 11-16 2.8, Canon 17-55 2.8 IS, and 100L Macro. That extra speed is versatile and there's no gap in the general purpose range. I do not like 2x-xxx lenses on crop cameras as I think wide view is necessary to be general purpose.
If you want a fast normal, consider Canon 35 1.4. And for later any 70-200 is a good choice.
If you want a fast normal, consider Canon 35 1.4. And for later any 70-200 is a good choice.